Description
The Mishna rules that if one sold produce to another and the buyer planted it but nothing grew, the seller would have to compensate the buyer. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this is only the case if the sale was for inedible seeds and it was thereby clear that the purpose of the purchase was for planting and not for eating.
If one buys an ox that can be sold for two different uses, either for plowing or for slaughtering, and the buyer doesn't specify for which purpose, and after the sale it becomes clear that the ox is a gorer and cannot be kept alive, can the buyer claim that it is not usable for the purposes for which it was purchased (plowing) or not? Does it depend on the majority, i.e. if the majority of people use it for the purpose that the buyer claims, can we believe the buyer and cancel the sale? Or do we say "the burden of proof is on the one trying to get the money from the other" in which case, the buyer is stuck with the item unless the buyer can prove with what intent the item was purchased? Rav rules that the sale can be cancelled and Shmuel rules that it cannot. A difficulty is raised against Rav from a Mishna but is resolved. A Tosefta is brought to support Rav, but it is rejected.
Abaye and Rava disagreed on their understanding of the Mishna regarding the ruling of a tumtum who tries to collect money form a father's estate. A difficulty is raised against Abaye's explanation from a braita, but is resolved.
Why in the case of the Mishna did the husband commit 200 zuzim to...
Published 11/13/24
The Mishna established the division of the father's possession when there is a lot of money and when there is not a lot of money. What if the financial status of the estate changes after the father's death? Does the distribution change as well? After the Gemara had discussed how the amount in the...
Published 11/12/24